Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing: Vol II Case

168 Pages·2001·1.78 MB·English

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Policy Development and Research
Barriers to the Rehabilitation of

Affordable Housing

Volume II

Case Studies
Visit PD&R's Web Site
www.huduser.org
to find this report and others sponsored by

HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R).

Other services of HUD USER, PD&R's Research Information Service, include listservs;

special interest, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources);

access to public use databases; hotline [phone] for help accessing the information you need.
Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing
Volume II of II
Case Studies
PREPARED FOR:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Policy Development and Research
AUTHORED BY:
David Listokin

Barbara Listokin

Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR)

Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy

Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey

RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY:
National Trust for Historic Preservation

Department of Law and Public Policy

Tamar Osterman

Bridget Hartman

The Enterprise Foundation

Planning, Design, and Development

William Duncan

Peter Werwath

and

Bradford J. White, Project Management Advisors

Robert Kuehn, Keen Development Corporation

Stephen Turgeon, Consultant

Ioan Voicu, CUPR

MAY 2001
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the critical assistance of the National Rehab Study Housing
Resource Group:
Robert Adams, VMH, Inc.

Randall P. Alexander, The Alexander Company

DeWayne H. Anderson, Anderson Development Company

Alfred Arezzo, Hoboken, New Jersey

William Asdal, Asdal Builders

James E. Babbitt, Flagstaff, Arizona

Richard Baron, McCormack Baron & Associates

Eddie Belk, Belk Architects

Peter Bell, National Housing & Rehabilitation Association (NHRA)

Bruce Block, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Jim Bonar, Skid Row Housing Trust

William Brenner, National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS)

Thurman Burnette, Rural Development

Andrew Chaban, Princeton Properties

William Connolly, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Codes and Standards

Karen A. Danielsen, Director of Housing Policy and Practice, Urban Land Institute (ULI)

William F. Delvac, Latham & Watkins

Linda Dishman, LA Conservancy

Dan Dole, Scottsdale, Arizona

Carl Dranoff, Dranoff Properties

David Engel, Office of Policy Development and Research

Dan Falcone, New Economics for Women

Mario Fonda-Bonardi, Fonda-Bonardi & Hohman, Architects

Joan Galleger, Garsten Management Corporation

Terry Goddard, Law Offices of Terry Goddard

Tony Goldman, Goldman Properties, Inc.

Dean Graves, FAIA

Frank Green, Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprise (CNE)

Cissy Gross, Kansas City, Missouri

George Haecker, Bahr Vermeer & Haecker, Architects

David Harder, Executive Director, Little Haiti Housing Association (LHHA)

James Harger, Winn Management

David Hattis, Building Technology, Inc.

Curt Heidt, Federal Home Loan Bank

Michael Hervey, Jackson, Mississippi

Kitty Higgins, National Trust for Historic Preservation

Bill Huang, Community Partners (National Trust)

Lawrence Jacobsen, Mortgage Bankers Association

Marty Johnson, Isles, Inc.

Anthony Jones, Clearwater, Florida

Will Jones, Research Officer, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO)

Wendall C. Kalsow, McGinley Hart & Associates

Kevin Kelley, Leon Weiner Associates

C. Theodore Koebel, Center for Housing Research, Virginia Tech

Karl K. Komatsu, AIA Komatsu Architecture

Richard Kuchnicki, International Code Council

Robert Kuehn, Keen Development Corporation
Michael Lappin, The Community Preservation Corporation (CPC)

John Leith-Tetrault, Community Partners (National Trust)

Aaron Lewit, Enterprise Foundation

Kelley Lindquist, Artspace Projects, Inc.

Stanley Listokin, Executive Director, Masada Construction

Stanley Lowe, Executive Director, Pittsburgh Housing Authority

Weiming Lu, Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation

Alan Mallach, City of Trenton, New Jersey, Department of Housing and Development

Christy McAvoy, Historic Resources Group

Bob McLoughlin and Helen Lopez, Albuquerque Housing Services

Michael Mills, Ford Farewell Mills & Gatsch Architects

D. Thomas Mistick, Mistick Construction

William Mosher, Mile High Development

Ronald F. Murphy, Stickney Murphy Romine Architects

Jerry Myers, Pocatello, Idaho

James Paley, Executive Director, Neighborhood Housing Services of New Haven

Bryan Park, Northwest Housing Resources (NHR)

Sharon Park, Heritage Preservation Services, National Park Service

Brian Patchan, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)

Perry Poyner Alley, Poyner Architects

Jonathan F. P. Rose, Affordable Housing Construction Corp.

Donovan Rypkema, Washington, D.C.

Clark Schoettle, Providence Preservation Society Revolving Fund

Howard B. Slaughter, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Kennedy Smith, National Main Street Center (National Trust)

Robin Snyder, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Gary Stenson, MetroPlains Properties, Inc.

Kathleen Taylor, Owner, Taylor Construction Services

Pat Tiller, National Park Service

Stephen Turgeon, Memphis, Tennessee

Mike Turner, Professional Remodeler

George Vallone, West Bank Realty

Emily Wadhams, Burlington, Vermont

Ronald Wells, Spokane, Washington

Kathleen H. Wendler, Southwest Detroit Business Association

Peter Werwath, The Enterprise Foundation

Jim Wheaton, Chicago Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS)

Bradford J. White, Esq., Project Management Advisors, Inc.

David Wood, Professional Remodeler

We also gratefully acknowledge the patience and critical assistance provided by Edwin Stromberg, GTR at the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Policy Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Mr.

Stromberg is a consummate professional. Importance assistance was also provided by Tamar Osterman of the

National Trust for Historic Preservation; William Duncan and Peter Werwath of the Enterprise Foundation; as well

as other consultants to the study (Bradford J. White, Robert Kuehn, Stephen Turgeon, and Ioan Voicu). We also

thank numerous unnamed professionals who attended two national review panels held in conjunction with the

annual conference of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Lastly, we thank those working in the case study organizations for participating in this study. They gave generously

of their time and expertise.

Final responsibility for the contents of this report, however, rests with the authors alone.

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or polices of the

Department of Housing and Urban Development of the U.S. Government.
Foreword
The rehabilitation of the country's aging housing stock is a major resource for meeting the
Nation's affordable housing needs. Large numbers of communities recognize this and use HUD,
as well as other public and private resources, to address their affordable housing needs. These
communities do this because of the demonstrated economic and social benefits of rehabilitation.
Despite the demonstrated benefits of rehabilitation, there is potential for even greater use
of the existing stock, not only to address affordable housing needs, but also to promote broader
community revitalization goals. However, heretofore there has been a lack of in-depth research
on the factors that act as barriers to rehabilitation of affordable housing. Gaining a sound
understanding of the issue is difficult because barriers vary from project to project and from
community to community.
To address these concerns, HUD entered into a cooperative agreement with the National
Trust for Historic Preservation to examine the major barriers to urban rehabilitation. The result
of this collaboration is this study, Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing, which is
intended to fill this information gap and, in doing so, empower decision-makers and housing
professionals to begin work to eliminate these barriers.
The project's research team reviewed relevant literature, conducted case studies, and
convened study groups of highly-qualified real estate developers, nonprofit leaders, architects
and other professionals who face barriers to affordable housing rehabilitation in their "real
world" experiences. Volume I provide the context of the study as well as a synthesis of findings
and technical analysis. Volume II presents the case studies in detail.
The rehabilitation needs of our cities will continue to grow. The comparative advantages
of housing made available through the rehabilitation of existing buildings will enhance the
character of our housing stock in the years to come. Through this report and other activities,
HUD will continue to encourage rehabilitation as a way to renew our cities and as a way to
increase homeownership opportunities for all Americans.
Lawrence L. Thompson
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Policy Development and Research
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ iv

Introduction and Major Findings .......................................................................................1

Context and Synthesis of Findings ....................................................................................17

Chapter 1: Study Context...................................................................................................19

Chapter 2: Synthesis of Findings .......................................................................................39

Technical Analyses............................................................................................................139

Chapter 3: Estimate of the Need for and Affordability of Housing Rehab .....................141

Chapter 4: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and Rehab ...............................169

Chapter 5: Building Code and Rehab ..............................................................................187

Bibliography on Housing Rehab and Barriers to Renovation......................................205

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................207

Literature Annotation.......................................................................................................228
INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDIES
Our study of the barriers to the rehabilitation of affordable housing relied on multiple sources of
information and data. These included the existing literature; the study’s resource group, often
contacted by telephone; and technical analyses, such as a review the low-income housing tax
credit’s (LIHTC) qualified allocation plan (QAP) criteria. Our analysis also drew from the
research team’s considerable rehab experience.
The multiple sources provided an extensive base of information on the barriers to affordable-
housing renovation; however, the sources had limits as to the amount and nature of information
that could be covered. For example, because of time and other constraints, the telephone
discussions with the resource group were not suitable for ascertaining the numerous
modifications to, or evolution of, a specific rehab program. In addition, the telephone discussions
did not allow for the face-to-face rapport that encourages a rehab developer or lender to give a
candid, introspective evaluation of the problems encountered. Accordingly, the study included a
series of case studies to assess the experiences of those doing rehab on a day-to-day basis. This
volume describes the purpose of the case studies, details the case study organization, and
provides, in Chapters 6 through 11, an account of each investigation.
PURPOSE OF THE CASE STUDIES
The purpose of the case studies is to add qualitatively to our understanding of the barriers to
affordable-housing rehab. Over and above the information obtained from the telephone
discussions, literature, and other sources, the case studies provide an in-depth and “real world”
look at the hurdles faced by rehab projects.
The resource group nominated many candidates for the case study investigations. The 11
programs chosen for study were selected on the basis of the following considerations:
1. Problems. The cases chosen all achieved considerable measures of success in their
renovation activities, but they also had to overcome myriad problems. We focus on the
hurdles that were encountered.
2. Strategic range. As described in volume 1, barriers to affordable-housing rehab can be
grouped substantively into economic, development, construction, and occupancy hurdles.
The 11 cases selected for the in-depth examination were chosen so that there was a
representation of examples of a majority of the types of barriers. We also sought variety in
the types of specific major issues encountered. Thus, some case studies predominately
involve the building code, others historic preservation issues, and yet others lead-paint
challenges.
3. Range of institutions. In selecting institutions for investigation the research team sought
variety in type, size, and geographic location.
4. Availability. The candidates were asked whether they would be willing to participate in the
on-site case studies.
1
Although we sought a variety of case studies, there is still a limited range. Only one investigation
involved a local, private remodeler. The cases also lack rural representation. Study resources
inhibited the ability to expand the case study range.
The 11 case studies are listed below by location, name of organization, and the major barriers
considered.
Case Study Location Topic/Organization Barriers Considered
State of Massachusetts Article 34 Progress and limitations of statewide rehab-sensitive
building code; issues concerning historic preservation,
seismic, and accessibility provisions
New Haven, CT NHNHS Secretary of Interior Standards; pilot program for
flexible standards
Trenton, NJ Isles Barriers confronting nonprofit, including building code
issues (“old” New Jersey building code)
Trenton, NJ Capital City Redevelopment Rehab issues (“old” code) involving reuse of upper-
Area story space
Chester, NJ Asdal, Inc. Rehab issues confronting remodeler and benefits of
New Jersey’s new, rehab-sensitive building code
South Brunswick, NJ Rural farmhouse conversion Rehab issues confronting reuse; highlights sensitive
to cultural center administration of New Jersey’s “old” code
Miami, FL Little Haiti Housing Many issues confronting a nonprofit rehabilitating
Association (LHHA) houses in Little Haiti
Chicago, IL Varied Issues confronting adaptive mixed use
Memphis, TN Varied Survey of range of issues confronting adaptive reuse
and mixed-use rehabilitation
Seattle, WA Varied Barriers to rehabilitation in a “hot” real estate market,
including analysis of the impact of growth management
Los Angeles, CA Varied Issues confronting rehabilitation of masonry buildings;
benefits and limitations of moderate rehabilitation
CASE STUDIES: FIELD PROTOCOL AND ORGANIZATION
All of the 11 case studies were prepared or overseen by the research team. Two of the case
studies were commissioned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Bradford White
conducted the Chicago case study for the Trust, and Stephen Turgeon conducted the Memphis
investigation. The Los Angeles analysis was commissioned by the Enterprise Foundation. The
remaining eight case studies were conducted by Rutgers University (with Robert Kuehn assisting
Rutgers in the Massachusetts analysis). All of the Rutgers case studies were prepared by Dr.
David Listokin and/or Dr. Barbara Listokin of the Center for Urban Policy Research.
To ensure a consistency, a field protocol was developed that would be followed by all those
administering the case studies. The protocol also specified the following organizational
framework for the case study write-ups:
2
1. Summary of findings. This opening section provides a synopsis of each case study’s major
findings.
2. Background. This section sets the context for each case study and includes such
considerations as the history of the organizations (e.g., Isles or LHHA) or legislation (e.g.,
Massachusetts’s Article 34 or New Jersey’s new rehab code) studied and an overview of the
city or state setting.
3. Rehab description. Where applicable, information is provided on the scale and nature of the
rehab activity.
4. Barriers to housing rehab. This section presents the barriers as illustrated in the case studies.
The hurdles are presented following the analytic framework shown in summary exhibit 1 in
the executive summary in volume 1: the economic barriers are presented first, followed by
the hurdles to effecting renovation at the development, construction, and occupancy phases.
CASE STUDY FINDINGS
Although we conducted 11 case studies, only six are presented in this volume because of space
limitations. The six, which are geographically dispersed, are Article 34 (Massachusetts),
NHNHS (Connecticut), Isles (New Jersey), LHHA (Florida), Chicago (Illinois), and Seattle
(Washington). All eleven case studies, however, are drawn from in the synthesis chapter
(Chapter 2). The findings from the 11 case studies are also summarized in exhibit I.1.
3